Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/28/25 has been entered.
Claims 1,12-13 are added and claims 3,11 are cancelled. Claims 18-20 are added. Claims 1-2,4-10,12-20 are pending.
The 112 second paragraph rejection of claim 11 is withdrawn due to the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim1-2,4-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In the amendment, applicant amends claim 1 to add the limitation “ free of mono and diglyceride of fatty acids serving as additives and emulsifiers”. This amendment is not supported by the original disclosure. Paragraph 0001 pointed out by applicant only discloses “ free from added monoglyceride or mono-diglycerides of fatty acids”. The limitation is a negative limitation that is not disclosed in the specification and there is no positive recitation to allow for its exclusion. There is no disclosure of monoglyceride and diglyceride as additive or emulsifier. The only disclosure pertaining to mono-di glyceride is that the system is free from added monoglyceride or diglyceride.
The 103 rejection over Boutte is reinstated because of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2,4-10,12-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutte ( 2019/115388).
For claim 1, Boutte discloses a premix ingredient system comprising fat coated fiber particles in amount of .05-99.9% by weight of pre-mix, one or more enzymes in powder form and optionally acid. The premix is used in flat bread product. The monoglyceride or diglyceride is included as part of the fatty acid glyceride to coat the fiber particles. The monoglyceride is not disclosed to function as additives and emulsifier. Thus, the system is free from mono and diglyceride of fatty acids serving as additives and emulsifiers. The fatty acid glyceride is derived from vegetable oil such as palm oil which is readable on the claimed non-hydrogenated palm oil. Thus, it is obvious inherent the fat has a melting point within the claimed range ( see page 6, page 7 lines 24-31,page 8 lines 1-16) The claimed component B is not limiting because the amount includes 0.
For claim 2, Boutte discloses fiber is coated with fatty acid glyceride. The examples show different combinations of fat and carrier. Example 1 shows 67% oat fiber. ( see page 6, examples)
For claim 4, Boutte discloses fibers including beet fibers, oat fiber, soy fiber etc.. ( see page 6 lines 25-32)
Claims 5,6,17 is not limiting because the fat-coated organic acid amount includes 0.
For claims 7,8, Boutte discloses the enzyme including maltotetrahydrolases, maltogenic amylases etc.. The enzyme includes mixture of amylase, lipase, hexose oxidase, xylanase. ( see page 8 lines 1-5)
For claims 9,16, Boutte discloses dough comprising the pre-mix and the dough is used to make bakery products including flat bread, tortilla. The dough comprises cereal flour. Table on page 11 show different amounts of the premix composition in amounts such as .1875, .375,.5 (see page 8, page 9)
For claim 10, Boutte does not disclose adding additional mono-diglyceride. The monoglyceride is part of the fatty acid glyceride. ( see page 6 lines 1-17)
Boutte does not disclose specifically disclose the amount of enzyme as in claim 1, the ratio as in claim 2, the amount as in claim 9, the properties as in claims 12-13,18-20 and the amount as in claim 15.
Boutte discloses on page 8 the concentration of the fat-coated fiber is from .05-99%; thus, the remaining component is the enzyme. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the amount of enzyme. For instance, if 96% of fat-coated fiber particles are present, then the remaining can be enzyme. Determining the amount would have been within the routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art. As shown in the examples of Boutte, the ratio between the fat and the inner core carrier material can vary. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the ratio depending on the content of fiber and fat desired in the coated particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the amount of pre-mix added to the dough and therefore individual components of the pre-mix in the dough depending on the type of product and the properties given to the baked product from the ingredients through routine experimentation to obtain the most optimum product. Boutte discloses forming tortilla which is known typically to be used in rolled foods such as taco, burrito. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the product having optimum extensibility, rolling and adhesion to give optimum functionality to the bread. The assigning of number to properties is an arbitrary system that can readily be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through testing of the properties.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutte ( WO 2019/115388) in view of Johansen ( GB 2417184)
Boutte does not disclose coated acid.
Johansen discloses a process for preparing wheat tortilla dough and a wheat tortilla. Johansen teaches to use fat-coated acid so that the release of acid and acidification of the dough can be controlled . ( see page 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use fat-coated acid as taught in Johansen in the Boutte dough so that the release of the acid can be controlled to obtain optimum acidification of the dough.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues claim 1 is supported by paragraph 1 and 13. The argument is not persuasive. Paragraph 1 only discloses “ free from added mono-diglyceride” and paragraph 13 discusses background art which identifies mono-diglyceride as emulsifier. Applicant points to the submitted articles to show mono-diglyceride as additive and emulsifier. It’s immaterial that the ingredient is known as additive or emulsifier. The fact remains that the instant specification does not specifically disclose that the system is free from mono-di glyceride as additive or emulsifier. It’s a negative limitation that is not disclosed; thus, it’s not allowed to be added to the claim. There is also no positive disclosure of adding mono-diglyceride as additive or emulsifier to allow for its exclusion. There is no question of support for claims 12,13,18-20.
Applicant argues 103 rejection over Boutte even though the rejection was withdrawn in the previous office action due to the amendment. The rejection is reinstated due to the new amendment of claim 1 as explained above. Applicant asserts that Boutte’s focus on bread products, not flat bread so Boutte was faced with different problem. The basis of this assertion is unclear because Boutte discloses flat bread including tortilla as explained in the rejection above.
Applicant argues Johnson utilized monoglyceride as additive and emulsifier. This argument is not persuasive because Johnson is only relying upon for the teaching of coating organic acid. The reason for incorporating the teaching of Johnson is explained in the rejection and applicant doesn’t argue the position taken.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
October 31, 2025
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793